Shifting topics now? Yes, I agree that Democrats have consistently over time publicly supported government policies they think alleviate poverty.

They do, but they're not saying what you think.

Now that's downright hilarious! What's worse is you actually appear to believe that!

Just to further rub it in-

"These and other policies have produced not only lower unemployment under Democratic presidents but also more economic output and income growth. In fact, over the past 60 years, the real incomes of middle-income families have grown about twice as fast under Democratic presidents as they have under Republican presidents. The partisan difference is even greater for working poor families, whose real incomes have grown six times as fast under Democratic presidents as they have under Republican presidents."
~ http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/...9s01-coop.html

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

The Democrats consistently focus on the average person and below. That's what separates them from Republicans. That's what makes me favour the Democrats and that's why I don't buy into all this complete rubbish from the right wing.

That you prefer the Democrats' brand of tyranny over the Republicans' brand is obvious.

Those of us who have broken free of the 2-party false dilemma understand that tyranny is wrong, no matter who the tyrant is.

"These and other policies have produced not only lower unemployment under Democratic presidents but also more economic output and income growth. In fact, over the past 60 years, the real incomes of middle-income families have grown about twice as fast under Democratic presidents as they have under Republican presidents. The partisan difference is even greater for working poor families, whose real incomes have grown six times as fast under Democratic presidents as they have under Republican presidents."
~ http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/...9s01-coop.html

Picking your time ranges is important. I wonder why this author chose to start in 1948 for his analysis.

According to the government’s own budget documents, the government expects to take in about $2.26 trillion (in dollars of 2005 purchasing power) in fiscal year 2012. So, to avoid the necessity of raising the debt limit–and hence the necessity of quarreling about the matter–the government need only reduce its expenditure to that amount. Such a reduction can scarcely be described as draconian, because an expenditure of this inflation-adjusted amount would bring the government back, not to the level of 1981, and certainly not to that of 1929, but only to that of the government’s average spending in fiscal years 2002 and 2003.

All but the youngest children will recall that during 2002 and 2003, we Americans were thriving: the economy was growing, interest rates were dirt cheap, and people with only a faint pulse could secure a mortgage that covered the entire amount paid for a new McMansion. Those were obviously, in retrospect, the Good Old Days. Who can possibly object to going back only a few years, especially when we recognize how fabulously everything was humming along at that time?

All anybody in Washington can talk about these days is the debt limit or debt ceiling – the total amount of money the federal government is authorized to borrow at any given time. After a decade in which spending increased by more than 60 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars and the debt limit was raised no fewer than 10 times, the government is about to max out its $14.3 trillion credit line, leading to fears that Washington is going to default on its bonds, stop cutting Social Security checks, and destroy the economy more than it already has.

But the current debate over the debt ceiling is full of malarkey for at least three reasons.

1. August 2 is a phony deadline. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has pushed back the drop-dead date when the U.S. finally reaches its limit a bunch of times already: March 31, April 15, May 31 were all cited as deadlines before August 2 was inked in as Armageddon. But this time, he means it, man, really.

2. Reaching the debt ceiling is NOT the same as defaulting on our debt – which would indeed be catastrophic.

Think about it: You can max out your credit cards but as long as you keep paying the minimum amount due each month, your creditors don’t go crazy. Interest on the debt is a small fraction of total outlays and the government has a series of tools – from using cash on hand to selling assets to scrimping on nonessential payments – to make sure interest payments are made and seniors aren’t put on an all cat-food diet.

3. Legislating-by-Panic is no way to run a country. The reason we’re in this mess is because government can’t stop spending. And the government can’t even pass a budget on a year’s notice. But we’re expecting them to come up with a good plan for the country’s borrowing in a couple of weeks? Trying to force through an expansion of the country’s credit line by promising cuts in spending down the road is exactly why we’re in this situation to begin with.

It makes far more sense to do something like sell some TARP assets -- the government is sitting on $320 billion in outstanding direct loans and equities investments -- to cover interest payments through the end of the fiscal year than to force Congress and the president to come up with a budget that cuts spending -- and borrowing -- for real, next year, not in some distant future.

Sorry, mj it's true. Hitting the middle class and the poor whilst massively enriching the very wealthiest stinks and that's what Dems are fighting.

Bullshit. The Democrats are not fighting for that. You've fallen for their propaganda. Secondly, screw your fallacious claims that cutting spending is the same as "Hitting the middle class and the poor whilst massively enriching the very wealthiest."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

I agree with you, spending could come down dramatically, but it won't help if all it does is reduce the middle and below income earners. Surely you can see that?

No, I cannot see that because it is not true. It's only in your imagination.

Bullshit. The Democrats are not fighting for that. You've fallen for their propaganda. Secondly, screw your fallacious claims that cutting spending is the same as "Hitting the middle class and the poor whilst massively enriching the very wealthiest."

No, I cannot see that because it is not true. It's only in your imagination.

You and jazz need to read up on this. I'm not prepared to find very easy to find links for you, because this is level 1 stuff and both of you need to properly educate yourselves. Until you do, there isn't enough substance to your points to further this discussion. Seriously, go take a real hard look.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

$800B for Medicare and Medicaid
$700B for Social Security
$700B for defense
$400B for other "mandatory" spending
$700B for so-called "discretionary" spending

Now let's look at this from your family budget perspective.
Medicare/Medicaid is analogous to your family's health insurance. Would you cut that?
Social Security is analogous to the money you pay to keep your elderly parents alive, as well as the money you spend on your kids, and maybe the deadbeat brother you let live in the basement. You could kick the brother out on the street I guess.
The defense budget is analogous to the $10,000 per month alarm system and the team of security guards you hire to guard your house. But it's also the cost of the private security force you've hired to go around the bad parts of town to threaten the gang members into 'peace'. As well as homes and headquarters for that security force.
So... What do you cut first?

That bulge in my face as I wrote about some of the attributes of the Good Old Days of 2002 and 2003 was created by my tongue pressing against my cheek. Still, one must admit, people loved all of those (as everyone now sees them) portents of doom at the time. Thats the beauty of an artificial boom! It may be unsustainable, but its still a boom. The trick is to enjoy it to the max and then die before the bust occurs.

Now let's look at this from your family budget perspective.
Medicare/Medicaid is analogous to your family's health insurance. Would you cut that?
Social Security is analogous to the money you pay to keep your elderly parents alive, as well as the money you spend on your kids, and maybe the deadbeat brother you let live in the basement. You could kick the brother out on the street I guess.
The defense budget is analogous to the $10,000 per month alarm system and the team of security guards you hire to guard your house. But it's also the cost of the private security force you've hired to go around the bad parts of town to threaten the gang members into 'peace'. As well as homes and headquarters for that security force.
So... What do you cut first?

While your analogy is poor, I agree we should cut defense...a lot. I think we should end these wars. Now. I think we should close ALL of our foreign bases and return the troops home and move to a position of domestically based armed defense. Absolutely.

But that's not going to solve the problem as you can plainly see. Maybe that gets you $500B. You still have around $1T to go...and before you start...you're not going to get it by raising taxes on the rich. You just won't. Ain't gonna happen.

The US government has so-called "entitlement" programs that are ultimately unsustainable. These will need to be cut, and they can be without armageddon.

While your analogy is poor, I agree we should cut defense...a lot. I think we should end these wars. Now. I think we should close ALL of our foreign bases and return the troops home and move to a position of domestically based armed defense. Absolutely.

I agree some defense cuts are needed. There is no way I support closing ALL our foreign bases, nor does that have any chance in hell of happening. We have over 700 bases. What we should do is consolidate that to about 250 or so, maybe less. Like it or not, we're not going to go from utter hegemony to isolationism. If we're lucky, we can get the government to do LESS intervention. A miracle would be to only get involved in conflicts that directly affect our security and/or that of our allies.

Quote:

But that's not going to solve the problem as you can plainly see. Maybe that gets you $500B. You still have around $1T to go...and before you start...you're not going to get it by raising taxes on the rich. You just won't. Ain't gonna happen.

The US government has so-called "entitlement" programs that are ultimately unsustainable. These will need to be cut, and they can be without armageddon.

The other thing is that even IF taxing the shit out of rich was enough, it would only work in theory. The rich are not just going to sit back and pay it. Neither are corporations, as we know. Taxation affects human behavior. Amazing that no one is talking about that. They are just sitting back assuming that higher taxes means people won't change their behavior.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I agree some defense cuts are needed. There is no way I support closing ALL our foreign bases, nor does that have any chance in hell of happening.

I never said it was going to happen. Of course it won't. Not until things collapse anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

We have over 700 bases.

In foreign countries?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Like it or not, we're not going to go from utter hegemony to isolationism.

I did not suggest isolationism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

If we're lucky, we can get the government to do LESS intervention.

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

A miracle would be to only get involved in conflicts that directly affect our security and/or that of our allies.

A real miracle would be if we only get involved in conflicts that are direct and imminent threats to the US.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

The other thing is that even IF taxing the shit out of rich was enough, it would only work in theory. The rich are not just going to sit back and pay it. Neither are corporations, as we know. Taxation affects human behavior.

Yep. That's exactly the situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Amazing that no one is talking about that. They are just sitting back assuming that higher taxes means people won't change their behavior.

That's because the Democrats (the Republicans to a lesser extent) always seem to be idiotic enough to assume their wishful thinking is enough for things to go the way they hope. They are disconnected from reality on this issue. Their analysis is almost always static, simplistic and superficial.

The US could probably save a few pennies here, or should I say they're-

"According to the Pentagon's own list PDF, the answer is around 865, but if you include the new bases in Iraq and Afghanistan it is over a thousand. These thousand bases constitute 95 percent of all the military bases any country in the world maintains on any other country's territory. In other words, the United States is to military bases as Heinz is to ketchup.

These bases do not come cheap. Excluding U.S. bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States spends about $102 billion a year to run its overseas bases, according to Miriam Pemberton of the Institute for Policy Studies. And in many cases you have to ask what purpose they serve. For example, the United States has 227 bases in Germany.

These bases can become flashpoints for conflict. Military bases invariably discharge toxic waste into local ecosystems, as in Guam where military bases have led to no fewer than 19 superfund sites. Such contamination generates resentment and sometimes, as in Vieques in the 1990s, full-blown social movements against the bases. The United States used Vieques for live-bombing practice 180 days a year, and by the time the United States withdrew in 2003, the landscape was littered with exploded and unexploded ordinance, depleted uranium rounds, heavy metals, oil, lubricants, solvents, and acids. According to local activists, the cancer rate on Vieques was 30 percent higher than on the rest of Puerto Rico."
~ http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=12785

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

Here are some facts. In the most recent fiscal year, the federal government of the US spent about $3.5T. These are the major categories:

$800B for Medicare and Medicaid
$700B for Social Security
$700B for defense
$400B for other "mandatory" spending
$700B for so-called "discretionary" spending

Spending must be reduced. In order to get into balance, spending must be reduced by about $1.2T per year.

One way to do this is to make comparable cuts across all major categories here. About 35% would do it. This would mean:

$280B for Medicare and Medicaid
$245B for Social Security
$245B for defense
$140B for other "mandatory" spending
$245B for so-called "discretionary" spending

Instead of obliterating the poorest in what is already a remarkably extreme poverty ridden country. Why not spare them that indignity and living hell and instead focus on making medical treatment less expensive, massive prison reform, massive cuts to military spending and all the corporate welfare, that companies like needy downtrodden China loving Apple want?

The debt needs to come down but it doesn't have to be eliminated so fast that you have to make the poorest even worse off.

Getting rid of the tax cuts for the top 2% is so dear to the heart of Republicans and maybe to you too. Why not get rid of it until the poor have a leg to stand on? Just abandoning people to that misery is unnecessary.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

I agree. The market can do this if allowed to. Currently it is being molested by government intervention.

Like what?

I favor large cuts in military spending and elimination all corporate welfare. But this won't balance the budget. Not even close.

Huh?

It needs to be eliminated completely. And enough already with your question begging.

Thanks for being honest about your desire to take other people's money.

The debt needs go come down. I'd be happy with it coming down quicker than it went up and to go into a surplus. You're making out that we need an across the board cut of 35%. How long under that scenario do you expect the debt to be paid off?

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

The debt needs go come down. I'd be happy with it coming down quicker than it went up and to go into a surplus. You're making out we need to an across the board cut of 35%. How long under thag scenario do you expect the debt to be paid off?

It depends. Those cuts only get things to balance. No surplus at all. But when the economy starts growing again and tax revenue begins to increase (with spending held firm at the new lower level) then you'd have some surplus. But it would still take a hugely fucking long time (and tremendous budget discipline) to pay down $14T of debt.

It depends. Those cuts only get things to balance. No surplus at all. But when the economy starts growing again and tax revenue begins to increase (with spending held firm at the new lower level) then you'd have some surplus. But it would still take a hugely fucking long time (and tremendous budget discipline) to pay down $14T of debt.

No way. Your maths is cometely wrong. With a 35% cut you'd get the entire debt paid off within something like 10 years.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

No way. Your maths is cometely wrong. With a 35% cut you'd get the entire debt paid off within something like 10 years.

How do you figure? The cuts I outlined only get the budget to balance. Actually there's still a small deficit with my numbers. You do realize the budget deficit is currently around $1.2T to $1.6T don't you?

How do you figure? The cuts I outlined only get the budget to balance. Actually there's still a small deficit with my numbers. You do realize the budget deficit is currently around $1.2T to $1.6T don't you?

You're including the stimulus, the bailout and the biggest ever temporary middle class taax cuts. No wonder your maths are so skewed. With a 35% cut you'd effect growth but even so you'd get the deficit down very quickly.

I can't do the sums tonight/this morning though.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

You're including the stimulus, the bailout and the biggest ever temporary middle class taax cuts.

I am? Maybe. I'm looking at total budget numbers for 2010. The $800B stimulus was part of the 2009 budget shooting that year's deficit to about $1.2T...but even since then in 2010 and 2011 the deficits have been north of $1T (around $1.4T and $1.6T respectively). I think we're beyond the mere $800B "stimulus" boondoggle.

I never said it was going to happen. Of course it won't. Not until things collapse anyway.

In foreign countries?

Yes, in foreign countries. That was the last stat I heard.

Quote:

I did not suggest isolationism.

Closing all bases? That's isolationism.

Quote:

Agreed.

A real miracle would be if we only get involved in conflicts that are direct and imminent threats to the US.

Yep. That's exactly the situation.

That's because the Democrats (the Republicans to a lesser extent) always seem to be idiotic enough to assume their wishful thinking is enough for things to go the way they hope. They are disconnected from reality on this issue. Their analysis is almost always static, simplistic and superficial.

Agreed there for sure.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Isolationism is a foreign policy adopted by a nation in which the country refuses to enter into any alliances, foreign trade or economic commitments, or international agreements in hopes of focusing all of its resources into advancement within its own borders while remaining at peace with foreign countries by avoiding all entanglements of foreign agreements. In other words, it asserts both of the following:

1. Non-interventionism Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial differences (self-defense).
2. Protectionism There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.

Isolationism is non-interventionism (which I do advocate) plus protectionism (which I do not advocate.)

Non-interventionism, the diplomatic policy whereby a nation seeks to avoid alliances with other nations in order to avoid being drawn into wars not related to direct territorial self-defense, has had a long history in the United States.

Quote:

Non-intervention, sometimes referred to as military non-interventionism, seems to some to be the antithesis of isolationism. Participating in global economic affairs would likely boost trade and expand US diplomacy, in the view of Edward A. Olsen.[

Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence". Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.

Nonintervention is distinct from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration.Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their polices from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade.

Tell ya what. Go make the argument that closing 700 military bases around the world is not isolationism. Make it online. Make it verbally. See what people think...then get back to me.

I just made the argument. I even used real words and their real meanings. You completely dismissed them with the wave of a hand. If this is what I'm to expect from others, then I don't expect much real thought to have been put to the question but rather answers from emotional irrationality.

Words have meanings. Emotion and irrationality and wishes and hopes don't change that.